• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America's Superpower "Burden"

Is America's status as a Superpower a burden on America?


  • Total voters
    22
Good god. Some of you people have no sense of history or national purpose.


The Barbary Pirates Wars sums up everything. These series of wars took place in the Mediterranean Sea in the early 19th century. Europeans, wealthy from their excursions across the world via colonialism, were content with paying ransoms and tolls for passage through this sea. The U.S., at its birth and infancy, could not afford to pay such things to secure its export/import businesses. Therefore, we went to war. And even though having to take a break in these wars to satisfy the British's desires to attack the U.S. in 1812, American Marines and Sailors wound up defeating the Barbary Pirates and solved the problem for everybody (even Europeans).

In 1823, the Monroe Doctrine had said that further efforts by European governments to colonize land or interfere with states in the Americas would be viewed by the United States of America as acts of aggression requiring US intervention. At the very end of the 19th century, the Spanish-American War brought America into the colonial game in a few locales (Cuba, Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico).

At the turn of the century, American Marines had to aid European nations in China. Aside from France, Germany, Japan, and Russia carving out spheres of influence in China, America had some "stock" in the existing Chinese government. Our role in the Boxer Rebellion was about securing more of our import/export stabilities.

Of course, Europe starts World War I, which disrupts our import/export trade stabilities. With their inabilities to figure it out, Americans eventually venture out into their world to secure it. In 1941, Japan tests us and force us to defend security. But once again Europeans couldn't figure out their own messes onn their continent, so Americans have to eventually cross the ocean to restore import/export trade securities.


And after WWII? When all of Europe's powers withdraw from their former colonies to licke their self inflicted wounds? The Soviet Union filled much of the voids and by the 1950s held influence over most of the world. America stood alone as the only force that could deal with a globe on the verge. The import/export world for the free world was endangered and since America didn't have a "big brother," we began to play the Cold War game. We often enough shelved our morals and values to beat the Soviets to the dictators and the populations, especially in the Middle East where oil had consumed the world as the ulitmate resource to build military and civilization.


After the Cold War, dumb asses began to assume that "our wars were over" as if the history of why we went to war was not an issue any longer. Throughout the 90s, politicians on both sides drew our military down and assumed that the outside world was now some how cooperative and healthy. 9/11 smacked the morons in the face and reminded them that even our two oceans will not protect us from the instabilties and corruptions of entire regions abroad. They claim to hate us for our activities abroad, but they wrap it all up in religious dogma and cultural propoganda. Europeans have been murdered over some cartoonist's idea of free speech. Amongst this wave of fanaticism, are our import/export trade stabilities. Even Somali pirates threaten international water ways (full circle, huh?)

It has been a burden. But it is a burden because Americans want a certain life style. The American military can pull back across the ocean. Slowly, but surely, will be the chinking of our lifestyles and securities as our trade partners abroad come under attack by military neighbors or suffer the famine and disease of a neighbor. Or from having to suffer the flood of refugees that would come from a neighbors internal civil wars. People are ignorant of military affairs, but when it came to Sudan and Rwanda, U.S. Marines were there. While the world refused to intervene, U.S. Marines were busy training neighbors to defend their borders. Chad and Ethiopia were important to containing Sudan's Sharia wreckage from leaking into Djibouti and other locales.


People have this illusion that they can criticize our involvements in little nothing countries or our interventions into other people's affairs, but the truth is that if they could and would handle their own affairs so that they didn't interfere with our global mission, we wouldn't be there.

Protecting America's interests and the freedoms of Americans have far more to do than some simpleton's idea that he must be attacked for his freedoms to be jeapordized. Should NATO step up or individual European nations bear the burden for their own sakes for a change? Hell yeah. 65 years of licking their wounds is enough time to catch your breath. But until we have a "Big Brother" like Europe has, we are stuck fending for ourselves and guiding the world's affairs to our favor.

As a European , I have to broadly agree with MSgt.
But you must read between the lines..ie


MSgt...People have this illusion that they can criticize our involvements in little nothing countries or our interventions into other people's affairs, but the truth is that if they could and would handle their own affairs so that they didn't interfere with our global mission, we wouldn't be there.



Please explain MSgt
 
MSgt...People have this illusion that they can criticize our involvements in little nothing countries or our interventions into other people's affairs, but the truth is that if they could and would handle their own affairs so that they didn't interfere with our global mission, we wouldn't be there.



Please explain MSgt

Absolutely.

Oil is some kind of important to America's prosperity and power. Our current enemies in the reigon are religious fanatics who absolutely despise their governments and are willing to slaughter even their fellow Muslims to ensure that they are on the side of "right" against them. Now our oil deals hinge on the stability of the governments who sign the contracts. This means that their enemies become our enemies. Every fanatic that has a grief with the House of Saud and the Egyptian "Pharoah" becomes a threat to us.

With Saddam Hussein attacking two neighboring nations and flying military jets over Jordan and Saudi Arabia as late as 2002....how could we just leave that situation to sort itself out?

Pakistan is another situation. They have nuclear material and host a very large fanatic base. Neighboring Afghanistan's instability has leaked into Pakistan. Should they sort it out or can we afford to roll the dice and place our securities in their hands?

Djibouti is of extreme importance due to its strategic location on the map. Sudan's internal genocide threatened stability throughout the region. It leaked into Chad and Ethiopia. Ethiopia our proxy "brick wall" between Djibouti and Bashir's mess. In the West, we already had friendly relations with Chad and therefore deployed U.S. Marines to them to assist in their training to act as the brick wall. With the UN struggling to deny the genocide in Sudan, America was stuck seeking ways to contain the spillage.

Taiwan's health is rather important due to import/export trades. China is aware of this, which is why the threat of attack is never more than a threat.

Genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo could not go unchecked in the European theatre. This is the location where the First World War began. Our trades with Europe are far too important to allow genocide to possibly spread beyond borders until it involves more than it had to.


Let's go back a bit. We worked to crack open the Soviet Union for forty years. But when it cracked apart we rushed to hold it together. They were unable to deal with their fracturing on their own, which could have placed their nuclear program in the hands of anybody.

The point of these small examples is that while people embrace the idea of globalization, they must embrace what comes with it. It is far more complex than it used to be. We only had to contend with Barbary Pirates in 1815 to free the Mediterranean for free trade. Today, we have to worry about country X's civil War because it may affect neighboring country Z's export to us. Country A's genocide may cause such a refugee crisis into neighboring nations that it becomes too much of a burden for them to deal with and honor export/import deals with others. This will move us to assist those nations in dealing with "what is not our business."

John Smith of Springfield, U.S.A. wants his newest Play Station from Japan. Doesn't this mean that Japan's stability becomes important to our lifestyle? Did China's Bird Flu scare the crap out of people all over the globe? What if this Bird Flu was coming out of a third world country that could not react to it properly? Who's problem does it become now? What about Swine Flu? That became America's problem right quick didn't it?

But what about what is near and dear to Americans these days? What happens when country X, Y, and Z in one region celebrates ignorance and provides educational funds primarily to religious schools? Or provides no opportunity for the disenfranchised youth who can't even afford to get married? Who do they blame when their role models and school teachers point across the ocean? At what point do their social prescriptions become our problem?

The affairs of nations very much affect us anymore because we exist on a plain that thrives on the interleaving of international deals and handshakes with nations that cannot provide their own securities. Their region's instabilities and thugs become ours.
 
Your last two posts are probably the best potted explanation of the role of the US military that I have ever read.
 
Honestly, America wouldn't have this burden if the rest of the world didn't depend on us for protection. Europe has been slacking off when it comes to self defense.

Its because that socialist hell hole uses us as a crutch. Its time for the US to end military socialism in Europe, Africa and every other place we have bases.
 
@Msgt: Are you in the Spec Ops community?

@Chevy: I think Msgt would say that we are there to make sure no one threatens our economic prosperity. So its not that its socialism, its just that without our presence there Europe will be Europe and that is a lot of military conflict against one another. If it weren't for our military presence there, the EU would probably not exist.
 
America needs to quit chasing dreams of imperialism and focus on things at home. You have to defend your country, but it shouldn't go further than that. Don't put yourself in the middle of other countries affairs, stop trying to defend other people's country, get out of the United Nations. Currently we have troops stationed all around the world - mostly in countries that are not even at war with us. This needs to stop.
 
America needs to quit chasing dreams of imperialism...
If America had ever chased those dreams, the world would be a very, very different place.

You have to defend your country, but it shouldn't go further than that.
To do that, you have to have the capability to effectively project force outside your country.
 
If America had ever chased those dreams, the world would be a very, very different place.

Yea, I'm sure it would be if you survive the nuclear attacks other countries will send your way to fight off the invasion.

To do that, you have to have the capability to effectively project force outside your country.

Ever heard of these?

USAF_C-17_Cargo_Aircraft.jpg
 
Yea, I'm sure it would be if you survive the nuclear attacks other countries will send your way to fight off the invasion.
I said:

If America had ever chased those dreams...

As in like at any point in her history where she was in a position to do so.
Most of that time was in the pre-nuclear age.

Ever heard of these?
Yes, I have. What about them?
 
Yes, I have. What about them?

Umm, they move troops from one place to another. Some planes are even much faster. Technology allows us to move our troops where they need to be so they do not have to be stationed in sovereign countries waiting for a war to happen.
 
Umm, they move troops from one place to another.
Yes... and in that, they are logistical assets.
So, they do not project force, they ferry supplies.
They also do it in the least efficient manner available.

Technology allows us to move our troops where they need to be so they do not have to be stationed in sovereign countries waiting for a war to happen.
I have a great idea - why don't you calculate the the number of C17 lifts necessary to ferry 2 heavy armor brigades from Ft Hood TX to, say, Seoul SK, and how long it would take us to do it, from the initial movement order to the moment the units are in place and combat ready.
 
Umm, they move troops from one place to another. Some planes are even much faster. Technology allows us to move our troops where they need to be so they do not have to be stationed in sovereign countries waiting for a war to happen.

This is highly impractical. Given the world situation, treating our military like a yo-yo won't work. We deployed and pulled back our troops from the Kuwaiti/Iraqi region for a decade over one man's games. Imagine all our thorns doing this crap just to parade around false power to their populations and neighbors.

A fact of our history is that our security has always relied upon the health of foriegn regions. This means that we must have presence and fisted representation if only to nudge "good" behavior. Bases abroad go a long way to preventing the development of wars. Flying our troops across the ocean only when they are needed is too reactionary and would cost far more in treasure and blood. One must also have established plots of ground to land these planes. Quick reaction will always come from bases abroad before troops leave CONUS to re-enforce.

Our greater role is prevention. They are not simply waiting for wars. In fact, President Clinton recognized his lack of experience and that of his office and expounded on the roles of the Regional Commanders (formerly known as CiNCs). Much of our high government contacts in foriegn "third world" countries since the end of the Cold War have been former soldiers and generals. Our Commanders have become ambassadors and diplomats for the White House.
 
Last edited:
Are you in the Men in Black? What is it, if you can't tell me for some NDA reason then just PM me.

Nothing like that. I'm just a communicator. I started out as a Radioman. Along the way I've just been placed in certain intel positions.
 
Our position as an economic superpower rests on our position as a military superpower, and vice versa. When we see one start to wane, we can rest assured that the other will soon collapse.
 
Our position as an economic superpower rests on our position as a military superpower, and vice versa. When we see one start to wane, we can rest assured that the other will soon collapse.

As the position as the economic superpower is one the wane, in somewhat real terms and most definately in relative terms, the position as the military superpower will decline as well, generally far slower thoughh
 
Back
Top Bottom